Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15920
- 15939)
15920. When?
(Mr Anderson) I could not
give you an exact date. Some months ago.
15921. Have you read the Mott MacDonald report?
(Mr Anderson) I have read
parts of it.
15922. When did you first read those parts?
Last night?
(Mr Anderson) No, it was
not last night. Some weeks ago.
15923. I may be somewhat hampered in asking
questions of you on the Mott MacDonald report if you have only
read parts of it, but let us see what progress we can make. All
the references I am now giving you, Mr Fry, until I tell you differently,
will be the pages in the Mott MacDonald report. 003 to start with,
please.[89]
This is the executive summary of the report. Mr Anderson, do you
see on the right-hand column a section headed "alternative
sites"?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
15924. And we see the exercise which was carried
out here was a preliminary survey. Do you see those words?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
15925. All right, so far as I am aware there
is no evidence before the Committee of anything other than a preliminary
survey on behalf of the Promoters. Have I understood that correctly?
(Mr Anderson) I believe
so.
15926. Thank you. If you go down to traffic
assessment, it says: "It is possible but not confirmed that
ExCel holds events that create different levels of lorry and parking
demand to those observed on the site during the World Travel Market
Exhibition". Do you see that?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
15927. You have no reason to disagree with that,
have you?
(Mr Anderson) No.
15928. The last sentence identifies Mott MacDonald's
keynote, executive summary conclusion: "Mitigation would
have to be achieved by using areas of land that are not currently
identified for car or lorry parking". Do you see that?
(Mr Anderson) Yes, I do.
15929. Do you take a different view?
(Mr Anderson) Can I just
be clear, are we talking about the temporary situation here or
permanent situation?
15930. I am hampered because this is a report
prepared on behalf of those who instruct you. You are the only
witness, so I rather assumed you would be able to help me. If
you do not know, then simply say, "I do not know".
(Mr Anderson) I think on
the basis of what I have said about the prediction in the potential
growth for accessing the site by car and the permanent situation,
I think we have got to review that sentence.
15931. Sorry, you want to review it. Did you
say that?
(Mr Anderson) Clearly, I
have identified there are improvements in accessibility arising
from the Crossrail project and that will lead to a situation where
fewer people can travel by car and that could result in areas
that are currently used for carparking as being identified as
potential uses to this situation.
15932. I see. To that extent you disagree with
your own consultants' report and the highest you put it at is
it could result and you want to review it. Again, have I understood
that correctly?
(Mr Anderson) Yes, I think
that is the position.
15933. Thank you. Could we then have, please,
O10.[90]
This is the site. Does this form part of the report you have read
or not, Mr Anderson?
(Mr Anderson) I could not say
I have read every word in detail on this.
15934. Let's see whether we can jog your memory.
In the left-hand column, the final paragraph, it starts, "The
ExCel Centre . . . ". Do you see that?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
15935. "The ExCel Centre has been a key
contributor to the commencement of regeneration of the area .
. . " et cetera. Do you have any reason to disagree with
that?
(Mr Anderson) No.
15936. The ExCel Centre is of material and huge
importance in the regeneration and redevelopment of this area,
is it not?
(Mr Anderson) It is an important
part of the regeneration, yes.
15937. Can we go on please to page 054 which
is in section 8.[91]
The first paragraph in the right-hand column immediately following
the bullet point and the first sentence, "A common element
of the possible mitigation described above is the need",
and you will understand that I deliberately stress the word "need",
"the need to utilise other areas of land within our outside
the ExCel site to provide alternative parking for lorries and/or
cars". Again can I take it that you agree with that?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
15938. Let me move on to the conclusions which
is page 062.[92]
I can take this quickly. I have already looked at the temporary
loss situation with my own witness, Mr Melrose, and I do not need
to reconsider it with you. You will understand, Mr Anderson, I
am deliberately exercising a self-denying ordinance as the Committee
now, I am sure, understand the areas in dispute and I am being
selective in the points I am putting to you. If you look at 12.3,
your consultants' conclusion was that the loss of the land in
the permanent situation, ie, post the slewing of the DLR, is an
impact for which no mitigation has been identified.
(Mr Anderson) Correct.
15939. That remains the position save insofar
as we go off site, does it not?
(Mr Anderson) All I would
say is I think that impact needs to be viewed in the context of
the benefits which I alluded to earlier.
89 Crossrail Ref: P111, Executive Summary, Crossrail
Corridor South Eastern Route, April 2006 (NEWMLB-7304B-003) Back
90
Crossrail Ref: P111, Royal Victoria Dock, Aerial Photograph,
Crossrail Corridor South Eastern Route, April 2006 (NEWMLB-7304B-010) Back
91
Crossrail Ref: P111, View of the Lorry Park, Crossrail Corridor
South Eastern Route, April 2006 (NEWMLB-7304B-054) Back
92
Crossrail Ref: P111, Conclusions, Crossrail Corridor South Eastern
Route, April 2006 (NEWMLB-7304B-062) Back
| 
